Topic: MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address” - page 37. (Read 448462 times)

Killerstorm's reply is absolutely correct.

I also wrote a longer paper talking about why mining doesn't need to be verification as well: Disentangling Crypto-Coin Mining: Timestamping, Proof-of-Publication, and Validation

It doesn't need to. Each Mastercoin client scans Bitcoin blockchain, tracking balance of each address.

Transaction which tries to send wrong amount of mastercoins is not a problem, as clients will take available balance into account when calculating the amount being transferred.

Particularly, if you have 1 msc and try to send two 1 msc transactions, only the first payment will be considered valid. This solves double-spending problem.


Every client processes same data using same rules, so they all arrive to the same state, thus there is a consensus.

Could someone explain how Mastercoin prevents double spending?

With Bitcoin, the amount that is transferred from input to output is balanced and audited by miners.

However, with Mastercoin, the encoded Mastercoin packet is not analyzed by miners.

So how does Mastercoin ensure that the data in the Mastercoin packet matches the balance available from the sender?

This is what I seem to fail to understand.

If the miners don't know of mastercoin data, then what is the entity that ensures that money that is transferred is correct?

PoW is dead.

NXT will 'mine' (forge) on Google glass.

Dinosaurs will extinct...

I see. You are right about that—Excepting that such discussion belongs somewhere like here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=106373.340

Is there somewhere to actually discuss mastercoin features with active developers?

You forget that there is code that treats anything less than around 5,000 satoshi as 'dust'.  Therefore there is considerable effect of the price of the coin.

Yes, the Freimarkets proposal looks impressive.   

Your argument is misleading, i.e. one satoshi could be colored. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a competitor in the "advanced feature race" which fails to take advantage of the enormous security and value of the bitocin blockchain will be successful. Might discussion in this thread be centered on MasterCoin rather than advertising/discussing competitors? In that spirit, I have some questions regarding issuance of new currencies and datastreams in the mastercoin protocol.

What possibilities are there to automate the stability concept of Escrow-Backed User Currencies? (If unfamiliar, see: https://github.com/mastercoin-MSC/spec)

I am wondering what mastercoin protocol features exist or could exist for a decentralized system to both issue and manage a user currency on the mastercoin protocol. In this way users could trust the design of a "user issued" currency on the mastercoin protocol rather than an individual. Specifically, how might a network of users or an instrument such as a separate blockchain possess the capacity to distribute or transact a mastercoin protocol user issued currency? I can think of many ways to create an automated, redundant system which could do this but all of them suffer significant counterparty risk, i.e., they require trust in the creator of the distribution system rather than trust in the distribution system itself. Is there some possibility to decentrally sign mastercoin protocol data streams or transactions?

Actually pretty much everybody who worked on colored coins were paid nicely, in one way or another.

Currently people who work on ChromaWallet are paid $50/hour + bonuses.


I'm not so sure about that...Just like in case with Mastercoin we started in September and got decentralized exchange by January. I mean, a year ago. We did it with much fewer resources, though.

The difference is that we didn't recommend people to start using a half-baked thing; the goal was to make a secure lightweight wallet (which is nearly impossible in case with Mastercoin), and that takes time...

You forgot about Friemarkets. The proposal is very solid, they are going to develop it as a Bitcoin protocol upgrade (which is superior to colored coins in many ways, but requires much more work), and add it to Freicoin, the alt-coin. They have a competent team...

The only problem is that they are looking for $200k in donations to make this happen.

Thanks for sharing notes on iXcoin. I'll be sure to keep an eye out on it and add it to the growing list of coins trying to create new exchange and smart contract implementations.  Is there a bitcointalk thread for the work of the developers that we might follow?

Well, let's see which implementation gets to the finish line first!

Well... you can invest in iXcoin.

Here's the deal,  we take iXcoin which is a merged mine coin with Bitcoin.

It has a ridiculous network hash rate of over 4 peta hash per/sec.

It is also dirt cheap at 11 cents with only 17 million coins minted.

It has been around for 2 1/2 years.

Now layer chromawallet on top of it.

You want buy in?   You want exclusivity?  Well, you buy iXcoin when it is dirt cheap.  

Of course, I could always say that I got an 'exodus address' that requires a buy it.   

But let's for now just call it an address where collect funds for development.

Well true,  Colored Coins is a labor of love,  who knows if the developers will ever see a payout!

However, it also does not matter how much money you have in development.   You still have to prove that the approach actually works and is rock solid secure.

Advertisement.

This is all bordering in ridiculous in that none of these coins have been shown to have a real implementation in the wild.   People are betting on untested prototypes! 

Mastercoin - doubtful how this approach of protocol layering prevents double spending.
NXT - Closed source implementation.  Does anyone have any idea of how this actually works?  How fair is the distribution when all coins were bought for a mere 21 BTC.
Colored Coins - Fortunately, they don't have a ridiculous buy in vehicle to support their work.
Bitshares -  So these folks use a bitcoin like clone to raise funds.  They are redoing everything from scratch.  Anybody's guess that this even works out.
eMunie -  I heard about it 6 months ago, not certain if their multiple simultaneous block chain forks really work.


Anyway, my plan for iXcoin (The Internet eXchange Coin) is dirt simple.

Stick with tried and proven Satoshi Nakamoto bitcoin technology and layer on top of it Colored Coins.

iXcoin surprisingly has already secured 1/2 of all bitcoin network hash rate.  So any financial instrument you layer on top of iXcoin will automatically get the tried and proven security of 1/2 of the bitcoin proof of work scheme.     Mastercoin, NXT, Bitshares and eMunie don't even come close to this kind of security.

Furthermore, each coin is dirt cheap, so using is as a platform for Colored Coins makes more sense.

Anyway, keep informed with iXcoin developments at www.ixcoin.co

bitshares is far far behind and seems no developer other than the CEO himself.
eMunie is supposed to be released late January.
Nxt will be formally open on January too. Currently, only alias function is implemented.

I actually bought some NXT and installed the server/client.

It looks good.

The client is fully HTML based, so you use it from a browser.

client is java. I've read some of comefrombeyond's posts, and it seems they have the server side ready for their distributed exchange and are working on the client now. They will be releasing the source code on Jan 3

I thought that about Ripple too, but by the time they did open the source it was way too late, too many other things to do to go back and look again.

Seems likely that by the time NXT is open source the same thing will happen, oh yeah queue it up like Ripple as something to look at someday but meanwhile keep looking into the actually already open source ab-initio stuff...

-MarkM-